Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Lose the Camouflage, Please
I am in agreement with much of what Claire Berlinski and Jon Gabriel wrote in their earlier posts on the events in Ferguson, Missouri. For the last fifteen years, much of my writing has been devoted to the cause of explaining — if not always justifying — police actions that have come in for criticism in the media. While I know little of the incident that precipitated all that followed, if it is indeed true that the officer was 35 feet away from Michael Brown when he opened fire, I cannot imagine a set of circumstances that would justify him.
That said, like Claire and Jon, I have been troubled by some of the images broadcast from Ferguson. And while I’m comfortable to be in their company, it’s strange to also find myself agreeing with the likes of Rachel Maddow, who on her program on Tuesday, showed a picture of police officers in camouflage aiming rifles at… I’m not quite sure.
Before anyone accuses me of turning on my fellow officers, I hasten to say that — in the wake of the Brown shooting — the rioting demanded a swift and decisive response from the police, including a show of force. The citizens and merchants of the town have a right to expect the police to defend their lives and property from those who would use Brown’s death as an excuse for robbery, theft, arson, or what have you.
But images matter, and pictures of officers in camouflage, aiming rifles from the turrets of armored vehicles, diminish public support for what the police are trying to accomplish. Keep in mind that I have stood on many skirmish lines in my police career, including in the Rodney King riots of 1992 and many smaller incidents, and have no sympathy for those who turn a peaceful protest into a melee; but nor do I have sympathy for police managers who bring discredit to a just cause by failing to grasp how public perceptions are shaped by their choices.
Some might find it surprising that, in the Aug. 19, 2013 issue of National Review, I gave a positive review to Radley Balko’s book, The Rise of the Warrior Cop. There is sometimes a need for armored cars and heavy weaponry in police work but, if I were running the police operation in Ferguson, I would keep them at a command post nearby and out of sight until circumstances demanded their use. And I would lose the camouflage.
Image Credits: NPR and The Independent.
Published in General
That article later states that “Johnson vowed not to blockade the street [….]”
What about when protesters block traffic? What about when their presence intimidates would-be shoppers who decide not to pass through the crowd to reach stores on that street? Even non-violent assemblies can be disruptive. Public protest is a tricky freedom to manage at times.
How long until the police show up with face masks like the “ukrainian separatists- (Putin’s special ops soldiers) ” ? Hiding their faces from the press like a Mexican soldier hiding his face from the cartel draws an interesting parallel as the source of the threat. Our press is a big part of the problem, ask George Zimmerman .
This got alot worse with Rodney King when those cops were acquitted as they doing their jobs arresting a very dangerous guy after a high speed carchase ,wacked out on PCP. The injustice perceived was a demand for a miscarriage of justice, they want arbitrary punishment for police . I imagine they would be more thoughtful if they were contributing to the taxbase that paid police salaries . You think that is part of the disconnect here ?
Local police possess weapons, equipment, optics, gear, and vehicles that those of us in the stateside active Army could only dream of. Shouldn’t this concern people?
Which is not to say that only the Feds should have all the big toys, but having your local lawman in full battle kit doesn’t bring around many supporters.
Of course, a lot depends on the context.
A crowd of 2,000 people protesting non-violently and 10 people throwing Molotov cocktails and looting stores is a peaceful protest with a few outliers – and does not deserve to be tear-gassed.
A crowd of 2,000 people in which half of the people are acting violently is a riot and should be contained with as much force as needed.
The problem is that we, sitting at our computers, have no idea which scenario was really developing. Just because a few pictures of rioters have shown up online does not mean the whole thing was a riot. But of course, just because the media call it “predominantly non-violent” also doesn’t make it true.
As with the Trayvon Martin case, the details are really what mattes. And in these types of situations, truthful details tend to be very hard to come by.
The primary purpose of camouflage isn’t actually to blend in to an environment, it’s to break up the visual outline of the person so they aren’t as distinct. Though different colors and patterns do work better in different environments.
There are some situations where a police officer in a tactical deployment would justifiably not want to be seen – the perimeter on a barricaded shooter comes to mind, or a police sharpshooter set in someplace. On a riot line, you’re going to be seen no matter what camouflage you’re wearing.
To me, the source of a protest is irrelevant. You’re right to assemble is not dependent on your cause making sense. Only that it be peaceful.
It depends on which night you are talking about. The video from the night before last shows pretty clearly that the cops instigated violence against a crowd of people who were not rioting, looting or committing any violence.
Yes, but what were they protesting? It is just like Trayvon Martin. What is the protest? Their “protest” does not comport to the facts, which is far more akin to a riot. There is about as much genuine connection as those Bengazi “protests” to some internet video… in this case, the facts of the matter don’t matter one bit. Who the guy was doesn’t matter one bit. What he was doing doesn’t matter. The event is an excuse to allow for the boiling over of racial animosity – what they’re protesting is whiteness, and I’m not entirely sure that anything can be done about that. These are not spontaneous outbursts, they are festering wounds – whose festering is encouraged by the likes of Obama, Holder, Sharpton, Jackson, Winfrey, the entire damned media…. by liberals who buy votes with welfare payments; who plant the idea that they are “other,” that their problems are forcibly imposed on them.
The thing about a protest is that there is some perceived wrong that might be remedied. What is that in this case? What is their goal?
From my (non-expert) readings, there’s really no such thing as “good urban camouflage”.
The closest one can come is, ironically, a dark blue jumpsuit, but it only works at night (wearing black creates too much of a silhouette effect against the background).
I understand that, but I think you underestimate the nature of the protests. A “protest” against police officers’ that is based on a deep-seeded distrust and animosity is not likely to stay peaceful. There are plenty of examples to show this, and these police are rightly on edge… once one or two people throw a molotov cocktail, the response is not simply limited to those immediate actions that we see. It includes whatever has been festering in the community, it includes the motivation of the “protesters,” and it includes a legitimate fear for where this is headed. There is no bright line, here.
I haven’t watched any full, unedited video from the night before last, so I cannot really comment on the specific piece of footage you saw.
That being said, with news video there is always the problem of the “seen vs. the unseen”. You can never see what is happening just outside of the frame. It’s very easy to influence how a scene is perceived by altering the framing and the zoom.
I believe it was Glenn Reynolds who noted that the relationship between police and the populace changed when police began referring to themselves as “Law Enforcement” instead of “Officers of the Peace.”
If your goal in life is to “enforce the law,” everyone is guilty and you simply need to find them. “Sir, you didn’t have your turn indicator on long enough before turning…. Here’s your citation.” No-knock raids? Wire taps? Drone surveillance? License plate scans on public roads to track general movement? Warrantless DUI checkpoints? No problem. Anything is good if it adds power to the Men In Tactical Black. And what kind of people are drawn to this profession? Wanna bust heads? Got the job for you!
If your goal is to “keep the peace” and wear a powder blue shortsleeve shirt with a badge, the mindset is altogether different.
Sorta like the PIT.
Your suggestion being what…preemptively putting down a protest deemed likely to become violent? Who gets to decide which presently peaceful demonstration gets broken up?
Since the right to peaceably assemble was codified because of the Boston Massacre, which was a protest against soldiers which was surely similarly tense, how do you square this circle?
The live stream showed both the protesters as a group very clearly, and the cops off in the distance. You can hear the warnings being shouted, and eventually the tear gas, rubber bullets, and general chaos that followed.
The version I found on youtube was considerably shorter than the version I watch live. In it you could clearly see there was no provocation from the crowd.
If Mike Gallagher has someone read this post to him, he’ll accuse Jack of being “nothing but a cop hater” who is “doing the bidding of Al Sharpton.”
That’s what he did all morning to anyone who said that the cops are too militarized, including Kevin Williamson.
I am very happy with my local police. Public perception is that they are strong and held to extremely high standards. If my family calls for help I want these guys to come. Riot control is different. It is wildly complex and difficult. I do not know the answer, but if this tragic event happens on my street I don’t want it spiraling out of control. We seem to know what we don’t want. How do the police serve and protect in a volatile crowd scenario? I don’t have an answer, but I am thankful that I have not watched video of a mob overtaking the police. A riotous crowd simply cannot be allowed the perception that it is stronger than the police. Disaster would result. My hope is that prior to donning riot gear, this police force was dressed in blue, and they will return to those uniforms when peace is restored. I pray for the safety of these brave men and women. I do not want my local police to be disarmed or “under armed.” I expect strength, integrity and character.
The police force in Ferguson made a strong statement in a world that badly needs a line drawn in the sand. I have absolutely no sympathy for those who continue to remain jobless, collect benefits and then create yet another dangerous and expensive scenario for which taxpayers must fund.
Officers make mistakes (not often) and member David Hayes put it well in describing their job: It is wildly complex and difficult.
As for the camouflage apparel; much ado about nothing! Those officers weren’t lurking in the desert or hunting with the Robertsons; their gear was as clear as day in an urban environment. I find it absolutely absurd that we are discussing the pros and cons of uniform color.
uniform
adjective
1.
identical or consistent, as from example to example, place to place, or moment to moment:
noun
6.
an identifying outfit or style of dress worn by the members of a given profession, organization, or rank.
With Whom do You think the cops were identifying by being identical?
I’ve never seen a cop in a service cruiser wearing camouflage.
It was deliberate and with a purpose.
Not at all. What we have done, however, is to extend this into a broader message on militarization, as if the response to this protest is somehow endemic of a broader trend, or indicative of a future habit, so to speak. On the flip side of that, we could consider the nature of this protest, which was not really in response to an event, but rather using the event as an excuse to air long-standing animosity. By assuming that all police response is somehow the same, we are also assuming that the protests are necessarily similar. “Peaceful protest” is not a phrase that is so easily blanketly applied, and given what those particular police know, which we do not, I am disinclined to believe that they saw it as a peaceful protest, but rather something more dangerous. I do not agree with all of their actions, but I also do not think that we can draw such sweeping messages about militarization as we seem to be doing here.
Please read my response below.
I have a tendency to be supportive of whatever it takes to shut down the violence and destruction caused by riots whether the state chooses to engage the local police/National Guard/U.S. military. Frankly, I resent those who pontificate about the civil rights of human predators when they haven’t lived through:
1. The ’67 Detroit riots. Although I was a child at the time and my family lived 35 miles north of that catastrophe, I still remember the fear felt by everyone in my neighborhood.
2. The Rodney King riots in 1992. Unfortunately, I happened to be visiting my brother in Hancock Park at the time. We managed to escape the premises but not before the windows of my car were smashed and the radio stolen. We were lucky, however. There were hundreds of businesses that were literally destroyed in a matter of minutes (particular targets were the Korean entrepreneurs) and it took a full decade for the area to recover financially.
This may explain why I consider the ‘camouflage vs. blue’ argument a Non-Issue.
There you go racializing things.
Mark Steyn on Ferguson and America’s exceptional police shooting statistics:
http://www.steynonline.com/6524/cigars-but-not-close
Isn’t that the media’s purpose these days? To stir up confusion, anger and protest so as to accomplish their agenda.
As I perceive what happened in Ferguson my sense is that the police are adapting a Special Forces approach, present overwhelming force and violence. It can be a very effective strategy, and part of me understood the display when I saw video of the rioters. However, this is not a military mission against an enemy. It is a police action attempting to corral a large group of unruly and, most likely, unarmed citizens.
More and more police are opting for the overwhelming force and violence tactic. In the process they are committing unconscienable acts, killing family pets and physically abusing citizens, sometimes the wrong ones in the wrong house. I think it is time for a reset. SWAT units are not necessary in every service of a warrant. Police officers need to look like police, not soldiers, and, with the exception of extreme circumstances, officer delivering a warrant should knock or ring door bell and await the occupant’s response. Violence should never be the first option. Particularly, in this case, police were attempting to quench a fire with gasoline. Excessive police violence was already an issue. It didn’t need to be reinforced.
I too experienced the ’92 L.A. Riots. I was forced to flee my condo in Hollywood, seek refuge and hope my place escaped the the looting and arson in the surrounding area. Having grown up in L.A., I also witnessed the serial and unjustified criticisms of the L.A.P.D. by race-baiters and political hucksters. I’ve spent my life generally defending police and police tactics. I still do.
However sometime in the recent past, we appear to have veered off-course a bit. I think there needs to be a sober debate about general police practices and tactics, as well as the equipment and weapons they are using.
Let’s start with ditching the camo and agree that “Hey, DHS is giving this stuff away for free” is not an appropriate justification for local law enforcement to appropriate some of this stuff.
I think the Grievance CEOs (Al Sharpton et al.) have managed – as usual – to distract the country from the real issue at hand; nobody has the right to rob a convenience store (as Brown apparently did) and nobody has the right to endanger local citizens and businesses with less than peaceful “protesting.”
I certainly don’t advocate police brutality or a police state, but in remembrance of Detroit, LA, and even the OWS, an ounce of prevention could have prevented a pound of cure. My empathy lies first and foremost with business owners; often, the very communities that complain of lack of services destroy what little they have.
To quote what was already well said by genferei in another post: